Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please enlighten me how it's a skill to get hit when there are times, quite a few actually that the pithcher let the ball get away from him. HBP relies on luck too much.

Also i'm not the only one who thinks so, there are posters here who agree with me on this point, and they are wOBA lovers.

What I meant was Ground Rule doubles should be seperate from regular doubles and infield singles should be seperate from regular singles and both added to the formula.

Whether or not it is luck is somewhat irrelevant. Some players consistently get hit a lot. That's a fact. There's a reason the same players tend to get hit more. At some point it stops being lucky and starts being something they have at least partial control over. Add in the fact that any player can just move out of the way of a bad pitch and there's even more correlation to skill. Call it a player's "balls."

In any case, we're talking about a small fraction of wOBA's calculation and honestly it's not worth debating it this much.

Ground rule doubles are doubles. Infield singles are singles. Adding a separate category for them doesn't make much sense. Again, it's all about run correlation. If you can show that separating those two types of hits out and putting them into the formula for wOBA makes the statistic correlate to runs better than it currently does, then I'd be all for it.

The thing is, it probably doesn't.

Another problem with it is record keeping. I'm not sure they actually keep track of infield singles and ground rule doubles. The data is probably there, but it might be more of a pain in the *** than it's worth to put it in useful form. Retrosheet might be able to do it, but I don't know if that's even being used anymore.

Whether or not it is luck is somewhat irrelevant. Some players consistently get hit a lot. That's a fact. There's a reason the same players tend to get hit more. At some point it stops being lucky and starts being something they have at least partial control over. Add in the fact that any player can just move out of the way of a bad pitch and there's even more correlation to skill. Call it a player's "balls."

In any case, we're talking about a small fraction of wOBA's calculation and honestly it's not worth debating it this much.

Ground rule doubles are doubles. Infield singles are singles. Adding a separate category for them doesn't make much sense. Again, it's all about run correlation. If you can show that separating those two types of hits out and putting them into the formula for wOBA makes the statistic correlate to runs better than it currently does, then I'd be all for it.

The thing is, it probably doesn't.

Another problem with it is record keeping. I'm not sure they actually keep track of infield singles and ground rule doubles. The data is probably there, but it might be more of a pain in the *** than it's worth to put it in useful form. Retrosheet might be able to do it, but I don't know if that's even being used anymore.

wOBA from my understanding is supposed to tell you how skilled a batter is. A stat, which should honeslty be charged to the pitcher and not awarded to the batter is in the equation. This needs to be corrected. Players hovering over he plate is not a skill.

I believe it is worth talking about because wOBA is claimed to be the best at determening a player's worth in their batting skills. It probably will be taken out at some point, just as reaching on errors were and stealing was taken out.

An infield single has a much smaller chance at producing runs than a single. A ground rule double will only advance player's on bases to a certain point. Therefore yes, since they have their limits in producing runs when compared to regular singles and doubles, they should be included.

Your last point is bang on though, hopefully more imformation is available as the years progress. I honestly want to not only see a player's average with runners on, but exactly what were the hits he made etc.

wOBA from my understanding is supposed to tell you how skilled a batter is. A stat, which should honeslty be charged to the pitcher and not awarded to the batter is in the equation. This needs to be corrected. Players hovering over he plate is not a skill.

I believe it is worth talking about because wOBA is claimed to be the best at determening a player's worth in their batting skills. It probably will be taken out at some point, just as reaching on errors were and stealing was taken out.

An infield single has a much smaller chance at producing runs than a single. A ground rule double will only advance player's on bases to a certain point. Therefore yes, since they have their limits in producing runs when compared to regular singles and doubles, they should be included.

Your last point is bang on though, hopefully more imformation is available as the years progress. I honestly want to not only see a player's average with runners on, but exactly what were the hits he made etc.

Repeatable = skill.

That's really all I have to say about it. When Kevin Youkilis stops getting hit by a pitch more than just about everyone else, you might have a point.

The skill may be as mundane as he's more willing to leave his elbow out there to get hit than other players are, but that's still a skill. If it were luck, it wouldn't be the same guys topping the HBP charts every year.

Stat I made up called 'BaE' or Bat Efficiancy

Its about repeatable production. When youre able to take multiple years of large sample sizes. There are trends and consistency which you use to understand the production. Skill is kind of pointless to figure out. It doesnt matter how skilled you are. Its about how much producion you bring. One season brings a big sample size, one that can somewhat even thinga out

That's really all I have to say about it. When Kevin Youkilis stops getting hit by a pitch more than just about everyone else, you might have a point.

The skill may be as mundane as he's more willing to leave his elbow out there to get hit than other players are, but that's still a skill. If it were luck, it wouldn't be the same guys topping the HBP charts every year.

Agree to disagree, it's no more a skill than unintentional walks are.

Originally Posted by Driven

Its about repeatable production. When youre able to take multiple years of large sample sizes. There are trends and consistency which you use to understand the production. Skill is kind of pointless to figure out. It doesnt matter how skilled you are. Its about how much producion you bring. One season brings a big sample size, one that can somewhat even thinga out

Honestly, I believe it is more of a pitcher's fault then a batter's production. If the player gets hit, the most likely cause is that the ball got away from the pitcher. If it's about production instead of skill, then I would take out HBP and put in intentional walks, infield singles and ground rule doubles.

Originally Posted by jej

Why is your stat allowed to have massive flaws and not tell us much more than we already know, but wOBA is terrible because it has one part that you don't like?

You are talking about how well your stat correlates to runs scored. Why do you ignore how well wOBA correlates?

If your only gripe is with the HBP, then why not just take that out and leave the rest? Why create secondary average/SLG/runs hybrid that doesn't help?

At least use the actual weights, rather than assumptions like SLG% and such does.

I'm only defending my stat on the basis that people think it makes no sense, and can't be used when it does and can. I've never made the claim that it was anywhere perfect or should be used in place instead of advanced stats. Oh and yeah, you wanted to see it, there was that too.

I would have prefered people would have tested it out for fun. At least that way you could have said whatever and I know that you tried it out at least.

As for wOBA, my 3 main complaints were valid, as since then both reach on error and stealing has been taken out. I would still like to see HBP taken out and infield singles and ground rule doubles put in. I have already admitted that wOBA has gotten much better but still needs improvement.

They are either big or they hover over the plate, or both when they bat. Again, agree to disagree, I don't believe it's a skill.

But it is inherently linked to those players and is something offensive they offer a team. So when looking at the full scope off a players offensive prowess, something as simple as getting in the way of a baseball matters. Like it or not, Youk is a more valuable asset to a team due to being prone to being plunked.

Honestly, I believe it is more of a pitcher's fault then a batter's production. If the player gets hit, the most likely cause is that the ball got away from the pitcher. If it's about production instead of skill, then I would take out HBP and put in intentional walks, infield singles and ground rule doubles.

I'm only defending my stat on the basis that people think it makes no sense, and can't be used when it does and can. I've never made the claim that it was anywhere perfect or should be used in place instead of advanced stats. Oh and yeah, you wanted to see it, there was that too.

I would have prefered people would have tested it out for fun. At least that way you could have said whatever and I know that you tried it out at least.

As for wOBA, my 3 main complaints were valid, as since then both reach on error and stealing has been taken out. I would still like to see HBP taken out and infield singles and ground rule doubles put in. I have already admitted that wOBA has gotten much better but still needs improvement.

Tell me why I should/would use your statistic when there are many others with the same goal in mind that accomplish it much better and far more accurately?

It doesn't matter if your stat isn't completely useless, and if that's the bar you are setting then yikes. Your stat serves no practical purpose since other stats tell the story in a much more accurate way. That means your stat is redundant.

But it is inherently linked to those players and is something offensive they offer a team. So when looking at the full scope off a players offensive prowess, something as simple as getting in the way of a baseball matters. Like it or not, Youk is a more valuable asset to a team due to being prone to being plunked.

Originally Posted by Driven

Who cares HOW they get hit? Stop looking at skill and start looking at production.

If that is so, then why not put the stats like reached on error, intentional walks, infield singles, ground rule doubles along with it, why are those stats not included?

If that is so, then why not put the stats like reached on error, intentional walks, infield singles, ground rule doubles along with it, why are those stats not included?

Hard to include statistics that the websites doing the calculations don't actually carry.

Infield singles and ground rule doubles aren't worth anything more or less than other singles or doubles in evaluating skill/production. The only thing that makes them more or less valuable events is the ability for runners to advance further. There is a difference in the value between a regular single and an infield single in terms of run production, yes. The problem is that difference is not a reflection of something the hitter had control over.

Why do you think all home runs are counted the same in wOBA? Is a grand slam not worth more than a solo homer? Batting with the bases loaded isn't a skill, though, so differentiating between them doesn't allow wOBA to accomplish it's stated purpose.

There are other statistics that you can use to reflect hit types and results more accurately, although those statistics aren't very predictive. wOBA is.

WPA and RE24 are what you might be looking for.

ROE isn't included because it's a noise issue in the data. There is some skill involved which would seem to warrant its inclusion. MGL has said he uses "implied ROE" in his linear weights when he calculates out values for different events. Basically, a ground ball gets a slightly different value than a K.

Hard to include statistics that the websites doing the calculations don't actually carry.

They should, they honestly should, we live in an age where so much information is available.

Infield singles and ground rule doubles aren't worth anything more or less than other singles or doubles in evaluating skill/production. The only thing that makes them more or less valuable events is the ability for runners to advance further. There is a difference in the value between a regular single and an infield single in terms of run production, yes. The problem is that difference is not a reflection of something the hitter had control over.

Well the same could be said for being hit by a pitch, outside of covering the plate, the hitter has no control about where the ball is going to land. Also bunt singles are infield singles and the hitter does have control in that situation so I respectfully disagree here. So what should be in wOBA, stats that the player has no control over or production in which there is varying degrees on luck?

Why do you think all home runs are counted the same in wOBA? Is a grand slam not worth more than a solo homer? Batting with the bases loaded isn't a skill, though, so differentiating between them doesn't allow wOBA to accomplish it's stated purpose.

Getting an infield single, a perfect example is Ichiro, is a skill. The guy slaps the ball and because of his speed, he manages to get alot of infield singles.

The ground rule double should count simply because it is being scored that way. To the team a regular double has more value than a ground rule double has.

Again, is wOBA measuring production only or skill?

There are other statistics that you can use to reflect hit types and results more accurately, although those statistics aren't very predictive. wOBA is.

WPA and RE24 are what you might be looking for.

ROE isn't included because it's a noise issue in the data. There is some skill involved which would seem to warrant its inclusion. MGL has said he uses "implied ROE" in his linear weights when he calculates out values for different events. Basically, a ground ball gets a slightly different value than a K.

All good and true, I never had any gripes about any other stats really, just wOBA for my reasons stated, and again, it IS getting better.

Tell me why I should/would use your statistic when there are many others with the same goal in mind that accomplish it much better and far more accurately?

It doesn't matter if your stat isn't completely useless, and if that's the bar you are setting then yikes. Your stat serves no practical purpose since other stats tell the story in a much more accurate way. That means your stat is redundant.